Note: The file has been updated since first posting. Thank you, Dr. Scialdone, for making the error known to us.
A key takeaway: “This use of HHC as an abbreviation for (-)-9-nor-9b-hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol
may be problematic because it has the potential to create confusion and uncertainty about the identity and properties of the substance incorporated into products offered for sale to the public unless more specific names and identifications are used.”
I want to add that we’re seeing more and more material labeled HHC end up being d8 or a mixture of d8 and other isomers (e.g. d10 and d6a,10a). I’m not sure if these are simple mistakes from not labeling liters correctly or if these are being misrepresented and sold. I feel like its a bit of both.
Real shit a former client hit me up the other day ,“hey brother what’s this d11 I’m hearing about. This company has a patent process for it. Can we get on this before it gets big?”
Asked for the patent/company name and never got a response. Not only will people lie about cannabinoids, but the existence of patents for the non existent cannabinoids.
Thank you @kcalabs this is exactly what I have been worried about.
Synthesis is hard and the first thing you learn as a synthetic chemist is how to identify what you have made.
I have been handed all sorts of hhc products that when I ask about the synthesis parameters, I can figure out that there’s going to be a bunch of different byproducts and products made and present in that material. Calling it hhc without proper analytics is just wrong
who could have predicted a third party testing lab getting in bed with a manufacturer would be a bad thing for the industry and their reputation?
withhold testing of a popular product > bad product starts circulating > “quick, write a dimensionless white paper about what shorthand to use when discussing HHC isomers (??) and warn about bad product that’s circulating!”
I understand this, but there’s clearly been some damage done. People have been selling fake HHC, and its been very easy for them to get away with it up to this point.
d11-THC is one of three possible names for the THC isomer in which the double bond is exocyclic.
I guess the most correct way of naming that structure is d9(11)-THC, implying that the double bond is between carbons 9 and 11.
One could also call it d11(9), but a double bond involving carbon 11 can only be between 11 and 9, so the 9 is implied, hence, d11 is acceptable and unambiguous naming.
I prefer the name exo-THC, which also appears in the scientific literature.
The CCL-KCA collusion surrounding HHC is some of the most inane shit one can imagine. I’m not asking what were they thinking since they obviously didn’t think.
never a good look for the industry